Midjourney Faces Legal Storm as Courts Grapple with AI, Copyright, and Fair Use

Midjourney's AI and Copyright Concerns

Midjourney’s AI-powered tools enable users to create art based on well-known intellectual properties, including Disney’s characters like Darth Vader, as featured in the series Obi-Wan Kenobi. This capability raises significant copyright questions, especially as AI-generated images closely resemble original film frames.

Court Ruling on AI and Fair Use

A recent federal court ruling addressed Amazon-backed Anthropic’s use of millions of books from the internet to train its AI system. This decision marks the first major legal examination of AI training data and will likely influence similar cases. The key issue is whether AI companies are protected by the fair use doctrine, which allows creators to build upon copyrighted material without permission.

The court found that Anthropic has a strong legal position regarding the use of copyrighted works for training its AI. This ruling is unsettling for studios involved in lawsuits against AI companies, as it supports the idea of using copyrighted content in training without direct licenses.

The Ruling’s Implications

U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the technology as one of the most transformative in our lifetime. Despite this, Anthropic faces a trial over the illegal downloading of seven million books to create its training library. The company’s subsequent purchase of those books does not eliminate liability. This legal outcome suggests that studios like Disney and Universal could seek substantial damages if they prove Midjourney obtained and used their copyrighted films without permission to train its image generator.

Lawsuit Against Anthropic

Last year, authors sued Anthropic, accusing it of illegally copying their books to power its AI chatbot, Claude. Rather than dismiss the case, Anthropic asked the court to rule on fair use. The court decided that authors cannot prevent Anthropic from using their works to train AI, just as no one can stop others from reading books to learn writing techniques.

The ruling emphasized that while individuals may pay to access texts initially, requiring payment every time someone references or draws upon a work would be unreasonable. This sets a precedent for AI training, treating it similarly to human learning and creativity.

Comparison to Other Cases

According to the court, if a person reads, memorizes, and blends the styles of classic literature, it wouldn’t infringe copyright. In the same way, Anthropic’s AI doesn’t replicate copyrighted work but creates new content inspired by it. This contrasts with the position of Disney and Universal, who are currently suing Midjourney for alleged copyright violations. They face the challenge that this ruling may influence their cases, potentially limiting their ability to block AI development.

Future of AI and Copyright

AI video generators, such as Sora, might also be seen as synthesizing existing movies to create new works. Legal experts suggest this ruling will be widely cited by AI developers to argue that fair use protects the use of large datasets for training foundational models.

Importantly, the authors suing Anthropic did not claim that the AI’s outputs infringed their works. The court noted that proper safeguards exist to prevent infringing content from being included in AI responses.

Limitations on AI Outputs

Judge Alsup compared the situation to Google Books, which limits how many text snippets users can view to avoid providing free access to entire books. He explained that if AI outputs were infringing, authors could bring a case. So far, that has not happened.

Midjourney’s Challenges

Midjourney’s case is more complicated. It sometimes produces images nearly identical to film frames, such as a precise depiction of Thanos from Infinity War or Tom Cruise in Top Gun: Maverick. The AI can also replicate animation styles from studios like DreamWorks, Pixar, and Warner Bros., raising questions about unauthorized copying.

Legal Implications for Midjourney

The complaint against Midjourney alleges that the company copied Disney and Universal’s copyrighted works without permission to train its AI. There’s also the possibility that Midjourney pirated studio films. In his ruling, Judge Alsup found that Anthropic’s illegal downloading of books was not protected by fair use and described such piracy as “inherently, irredeemably infringing.”

With statutory damages for willful copyright infringement reaching up to $150,000 per work, potential financial consequences for Midjourney could be severe.

For writers interested in how AI intersects with copyright and creative work, staying informed about these developments is crucial. Understanding what constitutes fair use and the legal boundaries around AI training can help you navigate collaborations with AI tools responsibly.

Explore more about AI technologies and their impact on creative professions at Complete AI Training.